I love how people who think they're right think other people are naive. What the hell do you know about me?
No, it's quite obvious. Anyone who actually believes that extreme environmentalists "care" and that economic conservatives do not is clearly naive. Did you ever stop to think that neocons also BELIEVE that what they propose is the best for the world as a whole? So did the Soviets, the Nazis, and Roman emperors. Moreover, even the most peace-loving treehugger has self-interest. Did you ever stop to think that environmentalists want more environmental regulation not just for the benefits to the Earth, but because that means more money and more jobs with the government and with environmental institutes? Also, we don't have a "huge" poor class in this country. Do you see what I mean now? The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"
No, I was just saying that it's a sliding scale. Some freedom is better than none.
And only freedom matters, despite the social costs - that's what a sliding scale would mean. Meaning, it is black and white to you, whereas I see it as as a parabolic efficiency curve. I don't know exactly the optimum range lies, but if freedom in a moral sense begins to trump freedom against nature/etc. then I start to think it has gone too far.
I think that cutting benefits helps in a wider sense. The people who transitioned to paying jobs are definitely better off, and, if governments aren't doing anything, it's better not to have them than to have them, especially with the outrageous public debt we have in this country.
They are better off because they have a job that pays... The question would be if it is better for people who lose their jobs and need to recover from it without a crippling loss. Or by a measurement of being able to recover, such as due to illiteracy.
Never would I advocate zero governmental restriction when it comes to maintaining a capitalist society. People are idiots, there needs to be some basic protection and general axioms/standards set, and a strong central government is the perfect entity to do that. Things like minimum wages, are good fundamental ideas.
However, I do not believe in material equality. Just because I have something, does mean someone else deserves it too. I believe that government should enable every individual an equal chance at succeeding, not that they should enable every individual access to the services of others. That's where I differ from social liberals.Also, what I think people actually need to succeed is far different than what most liberals think people need to succeed.
So for the government to try and enable every individual an equal chance at succeeding, everyone would of course need access to good education, health services, food etc.
I think you sound like a potential liberal to me. And studies have shown liberal Europe to have a better economic mobility rate than the US, because with safety nets and basic public services, people have a better chance at succeeding when their basic needs are met. And especially during an economic crisis, those safety nets serve as a much needed relief to economic suffering.